后华为时代欧盟SEP纠纷的法律框架:向何处协调?

N. Zingales
{"title":"后华为时代欧盟SEP纠纷的法律框架:向何处协调?","authors":"N. Zingales","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEX018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article revisits the antitrust treatment of unilateral conduct in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes in the EU, with particular focus on the landmark CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE and the way it has affected subsequent developments before national courts. It explains that while the court in Huawei significantly improved legal certainty both for SEP holders and their potential licensees, it also left open a number of crucial questions affecting everyday licensing practice. First, it is not entirely clear whether the liability of an SEP holder presupposes leveraging by a vertically integrated firm or can also arise in purely vertical or horizontal relationships. Secondly, the safe harbour procedure formu- lated in the judgment begs important questions concerning burden of proof and portfolio licensing, which have given rise to divergent interpretations. It follows that the space remains wide open for competing national and even regional approaches to the rights and obligations of SEP holders, calling for further European harmonization—be it judicially, legislatively, or administratively through the European Commission. In support of the latter measures, the article illustrates the limited remit of EU private international law rules in preventing the forum shopping which is likely to unfold as a result of a fragmented landscape for the resolution of SEP disputes, and the limited ability of the Unified Patent Court to ameliorate the associated fragmentation a.nd coordination problems.","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"95 1","pages":"628-682"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Legal Framework for SEP Disputes in the EU Post-Huawei: Whither Harmonization?\",\"authors\":\"N. Zingales\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/YEL/YEX018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article revisits the antitrust treatment of unilateral conduct in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes in the EU, with particular focus on the landmark CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE and the way it has affected subsequent developments before national courts. It explains that while the court in Huawei significantly improved legal certainty both for SEP holders and their potential licensees, it also left open a number of crucial questions affecting everyday licensing practice. First, it is not entirely clear whether the liability of an SEP holder presupposes leveraging by a vertically integrated firm or can also arise in purely vertical or horizontal relationships. Secondly, the safe harbour procedure formu- lated in the judgment begs important questions concerning burden of proof and portfolio licensing, which have given rise to divergent interpretations. It follows that the space remains wide open for competing national and even regional approaches to the rights and obligations of SEP holders, calling for further European harmonization—be it judicially, legislatively, or administratively through the European Commission. In support of the latter measures, the article illustrates the limited remit of EU private international law rules in preventing the forum shopping which is likely to unfold as a result of a fragmented landscape for the resolution of SEP disputes, and the limited ability of the Unified Patent Court to ameliorate the associated fragmentation a.nd coordination problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"95 1\",\"pages\":\"628-682\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEX018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEX018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文回顾了欧盟标准必要专利(SEP)纠纷中单边行为的反垄断处理,特别关注欧盟法院在华为诉中兴一案中具有里程碑意义的判决,以及该判决对各国法院后续发展的影响。它解释说,虽然华为一案大大提高了SEP持有人及其潜在被许可人的法律确定性,但它也留下了一些影响日常许可实践的关键问题。首先,并不完全清楚SEP持有人的责任是否以垂直整合公司的杠杆为前提,或者也可以在纯粹的垂直或水平关系中产生。其次,判决中规定的安全港程序回避了举证责任和组合许可的重要问题,这引起了不同的解释。因此,对于SEP持有人的权利和义务,国家甚至地区之间的竞争空间仍然是开放的,这要求欧洲进一步协调——无论是在司法上,立法上,还是通过欧盟委员会的行政管理上。为了支持后一种措施,本文说明了欧盟国际私法规则在防止因解决SEP纠纷的碎片化格局而可能展开的论坛购物方面的有限职权,以及统一专利法院改善相关碎片化和协调问题的有限能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Legal Framework for SEP Disputes in the EU Post-Huawei: Whither Harmonization?
This article revisits the antitrust treatment of unilateral conduct in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes in the EU, with particular focus on the landmark CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE and the way it has affected subsequent developments before national courts. It explains that while the court in Huawei significantly improved legal certainty both for SEP holders and their potential licensees, it also left open a number of crucial questions affecting everyday licensing practice. First, it is not entirely clear whether the liability of an SEP holder presupposes leveraging by a vertically integrated firm or can also arise in purely vertical or horizontal relationships. Secondly, the safe harbour procedure formu- lated in the judgment begs important questions concerning burden of proof and portfolio licensing, which have given rise to divergent interpretations. It follows that the space remains wide open for competing national and even regional approaches to the rights and obligations of SEP holders, calling for further European harmonization—be it judicially, legislatively, or administratively through the European Commission. In support of the latter measures, the article illustrates the limited remit of EU private international law rules in preventing the forum shopping which is likely to unfold as a result of a fragmented landscape for the resolution of SEP disputes, and the limited ability of the Unified Patent Court to ameliorate the associated fragmentation a.nd coordination problems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
The unified patent court Corporate tax reform in the European Union: are the stars finally aligned? Rescuing transparency in the digital economy: in search of a common notion in EU consumer and data protection law The impact of the Digital Content Directive on online platforms’ Terms of Service The European Union’s Preferential Trade Agreements: between convergence and differentiation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1